Channel Pacific Keeps Its West Sacramento Exemption

Published: November 3, 2026

The Surface Transportation Board on October 29 left in place an operating exemption for Channel Pacific Railroad over about 2,132 feet of track in a West Sacramento terminal. In Finance Docket No. FD 36932, decided October 27 and served October 29, the Board declined to open a proceeding on a petition to reject the exemption, revoke it, or declare it void from the start. The petition is denied. The exemption took effect in June.

A short track beside the ship channel

Channel Pacific, which was not a railroad when it filed, submitted a verified notice on May 12 under 49 CFR 1150.31. The notice covers about 2,132 feet in a terminal facility in West Sacramento, Yolo County. The Board’s decision describes two tracks with no mileposts. They meet a Union Pacific line at the north edge of the facility, immediately south of Channel Drive, and run south to points immediately north of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel. The decision says the track is owned by Greencycle Properties, LLC, a corporate affiliate that is not itself a railroad.

Channel Pacific told the Board that it and Greencycle are both controlled by Teichert Inc., and that Teichert does not own any other rail carriers. The company also said a third track will be a spur and is left out of the 2,132 feet. It said it is leasing the line and the facility from Greencycle under a lease effective July 1, and that it signed an interchange agreement with Union Pacific effective July 14.

The notice was published in the Federal Register on May 28 (91 Fed. Reg. 31318). Petitions to stay it were due June 4. None were filed. On June 10 the Board waived the 60-day advance notice requirement in 49 CFR 1150.32(e) and set the effective date at June 11.

What the city and the port district argued

On July 31 the City of West Sacramento and the Sacramento-Yolo Port District asked the Board to reject the notice, revoke the exemption, or declare it void from the start. Channel Pacific replied on August 20.

The city and the port district said the notice left out how the site would handle petroleum products, including asphaltic oil moving from ships into storage tanks and then into trucks. They said truck loading would occur more than 300 feet from the rail spur, that plans to repurpose chemical tanks and to lease a dock were missing, and that Greencycle would be the only shipper. They said the words “terminal complex” suggested a multi-tenant rail park. They also said a projection of annual operating revenues exceeding $5 million referred to asphalt sales rather than rail service, and that Channel Pacific wanted Board authority in part so federal preemption would limit state and local land-use rules. An August 2025 letter, in their account, described a track-licensing agreement with Union Pacific, the sort of paper a rail customer would have, rather than an interchange agreement.

Why the petition failed

Because the exemption was already in effect, the Board treated the filing as a petition to revoke. A notice of this kind has to include a brief summary of the transaction. The Board said Channel Pacific’s notice did that. Plans for maritime shipments, storage tanks, and the distance from the rail spur to the truck loading are not required by the regulation. The Board said that information is not material. The description of a terminal complex was not misleading. The Board did not fault the figure of 2,132 feet. It said the challengers had given no basis to find the revenue estimate false or misleading.

Channel Pacific said that estimate was for the railroad service it intends to sell, that it would haul and handle asphaltic oil for a charge, and that it would not own the oil. It said the facility can be offered to other customers, and that it understands the duty to hold itself out as a common carrier. Those statements are the company’s, in its reply. The Board said the rules do not require every locomotive, carrier code, and contract to be finished before a company asks for operating authority.

Channel Pacific acknowledged that it sought common-carrier status in part because of local efforts to regulate the terminal’s access to the interstate network. The Board said there was no specific evidence that the plan to operate as a common carrier was not legitimate, and so no basis to void the notice or revoke the exemption. It added that disclosing the dispute earlier could have let the Board take up that question sooner. Leaving the dispute out of the original notice was not, in the Board’s words, materially misleading.

The city and the port district had not shown that regulation is necessary to carry out the national rail transportation policy. They also had not tried to show that the operation would harm the national rail network, competitive service, or shippers. On that record the Board declined to revoke the exemption.

On September 8 the city and the port district asked to file a rebuttal. Channel Pacific opposed the request on September 23. The Board denied it. The rules do not allow a reply to a reply, and the filing largely repeated the petition.

The decision is effective on the October 29 service date. The Board said it will be published in the Federal Register. The order declines to institute a proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) and denies the petition.

Sources

Surface Transportation Board decision, Docket No. FD 36932, Channel Pacific Railroad—operation exemption—in West Sacramento, Yolo County, Cal. Decided October 27, 2026. Served October 29, 2026. The Board declines to institute a proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) and denies the petition of the City of West Sacramento and the Sacramento-Yolo Port District. Verified notice filed May 12, 2026, under 49 CFR 1150.31, for about 2,132 feet of track in a terminal facility. Federal Register notice May 28, 2026, 91 Fed. Reg. 31318. Effective June 11, 2026, after a June 10 waiver of the 60-day advance notice in 49 CFR 1150.32(e). No stay request was filed by June 4. Reply filed August 20, 2026. The decision describes two tracks with no mileposts, a Union Pacific connection immediately south of Channel Drive, and a south end immediately north of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel. Ownership is with Greencycle Properties, LLC. Channel Pacific said it and Greencycle are controlled by Teichert Inc., that a third track is an uncounted spur, that a lease was effective July 1, and that an interchange agreement with Union Pacific was effective July 14. The challengers’ arguments on asphaltic oil, tank and dock plans, a distance of more than 300 feet, a revenue estimate exceeding $5 million, and preemption are their petition. The Board said the notice met the brief-summary requirement, that those operational details are not material, that the revenue estimate had not been shown to be false or misleading, and that the challengers had not shown harm to the national rail network, competitive service, or shippers, or that regulation is necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy. A September 8 request to file a rebuttal was denied. The decision is effective on its service date.

Facebook X Pinterest Tumblr Reddit WhatsApp Messenger

Channel Pacific Keeps Its West Sacramento Exemption

A short track beside the ship channel

What the city and the port district argued

Why the petition failed

Related reading on American-Rails.com

Sources